General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Last week I spoke of the fundamental lack of integrity that is at the core of the Labour-led Government. I spoke about “paintergate”, about “corngate”, about “Doone-gate”, and about Helen Clark’s refusal to take responsibility for speeding through South Canterbury at 160 kilometres an hour. I spoke about the shambles of Kyoto. I spoke about the structure that created a mickey-mouse Government in which two Ministers, on the one hand, claim to be part of the Government, and, on the other hand, claim to be part of the Opposition, even though they behave like Government poodles.

Now we have “pledge card - gate”. The Prime Minister signed a card—with her photograph on it, and with her commitments written on it—for which somehow she is no longer responsible. We saw her this week in the House playing funny procedural games to deny responsibility for her action of flagrantly breaching the Electoral Act.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: What double standards from that member, who’s got his face all over this pamphlet—paid for by the taxpayer!

Mr Goff is quite wrong. The Government has flagrantly breached its electoral cap by half a million dollars and, moreover, has used taxpayers’ money to do so.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not want to interrupt Dr Brash, at all. But there is too much noise from members, particularly over there. [Interruption] This is a point of order; the member cannot say “Shut up”. [Interruption] I am sorry; I thought she said it, but never mind. Dr Brash was speaking, and we could not hear him down this end of the House, and I suspect the public could not, either. I know the public like a good joke, so I want them to hear it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. The member is quite right—in the general debate there is always a level of interjection, but it was actually very, very difficult to hear. I also say that that was the final warning for people who interrupt during points of order. There were a number of interruptions then. Points of order will be heard in silence.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you effectively ruling that the final comment made by Winston Peters is acceptable, because we have put up with those comments all afternoon, and we are sick of it. The Chair does need to send him a strong message, and he should get his marching orders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The first part of Mr Peters’ point of order was legitimate. The second part contained a comment that was similar to comments that have indeed been made by members on all sides of the House, especially during general debates. I ask the member to continue.

I am talking about the fundamental lack of integrity in this Government. I am talking about “pledge card - gate”. I am talking about the card that the Prime Minister signed that bears her photograph, has her commitments written on it, and was issued in flagrant breach of the Electoral Act cap. She also used $446,000 of taxpayers’ money, in clear breach of the Parliamentary Service rules. The reality is that the Government has a fundamental lack of integrity at its core. Some people would turn a blind eye to that lack of integrity. I would not do so, but some people would turn a blind eye to what is clearly a flagrant breach of the law and a flagrant breach of the Parliamentary Service rules.

One might have turned a blind eye to it if the Government were competent. But we have seen in the last 3 to 4 hours that the Government is not even competent. My colleague Maurice Williamson highlighted the fact that in June last year Transit issued a document that had to be changed after it was printed. Two months later it was changed again, and just 6 months later a new document was issued, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, by an organisation whose board is full of Labour Party appointees—including the Labour Party president, Mike Williams. Less than 1 hour after the document was released for consultation the Associate Minister of Finance said: “Disregard the document. It’s got no meaning.” Maurice Williamson highlighted the fact that the document is clearly flagging totally different dates.

My colleague talked about the Kōpū Bridge project, which one document said could start in 2008-09, but with the funding shortfall it will not actually begin until 2014-2015. Another project is the Newmarket viaduct replacement. This big, fat document talks about it starting in 2007-08, just 18 months or 2 years away. But with the funding shortfall, it will not be started until 2 years later, in 2009-10. I remind members that that means the bridge will not be finished by the time the Rugby World Cup takes place in Auckland. There will be a bombsite in the centre of Auckland, with that viaduct half-built. Then there is the main highway, Ellerslie, which, the big document states, could start in 2006-07. But the document issued to Auckland states that it will not start before 2014-15 or maybe after then—“2014-15” written with a little plus sign beside it means it will probably be beyond that 10 years.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Point of order, Tau Henare.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

I was first, sorry, boss.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I have called Mr Henare.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, but he is junior.

Oh, I say to Winnie that he does not have to be like that. Madam Assistant Speaker, I did not want to interrupt the speaker because I believe it would have been rude, but throughout that speech there was a cacophony of noise—not just interruptions or banter but a cacophony of noise, including Ministers walking in and out of the House, talking, and yelling out things to the person who was speaking.

The other thing is that Peter Brown and one of his colleagues from New Zealand First were standing in the House while a speaker was speaking. Madam Assistant Speaker, I just ask you to do your job properly, because you are not doing it.

The member will stand and withdraw that last remark. He knows that if he wants to criticise the Speaker, there is a proper way of doing it. He will stand and withdraw that remark.

💬 Hon TAU HENARE: No.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I will then ask the member to leave the Chamber now.

The Hon Tau Henare withdrew from the Chamber.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I move an extension of time for Don Brash’s speech. We are entitled to hear one today; that is what I came here for.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s not a point of order.

I can seek leave for an extension of time for Dr Brash.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows that he cannot do that.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have just asked Mr Henare to leave the Chamber because he was not prepared to withdraw a remark. I appreciate that probably two things have become a little confused here. One is his frustration at the shenanigans that have been going on in the House this afternoon and the apparent overlooking of some of those things for certain personalities in the House, and the other is the confusion about that by your actions. You have been in the Chair for only a short time, so I will not relitigate that, but I am simply trying to put some context around a few things.

If we take it back to yesterday, we know that Mr Mallard jumped up very quickly to suggest that Dr Brash had made a comment after a question had begun, when the Speaker had clearly ruled that when questions were being asked, no one was to speak. Dr Brash admitted that it was him, and he was asked to leave the Chamber. We just saw a situation whereby you called Mr Henare for his point of order, and Mr Peters immediately started barking at you that he was senior to Mr Henare. It has been well understood for a long time that when people take points of order, they are heard in silence. If this House was to be consistent, Mr Peters would be asked to remove himself—just as Mr Henare has been asked to leave—for breaching exactly the protocol that Dr Brash was asked to leave the House for yesterday. I do not want to prolong things, but I suggest that what is good for one side should be good for the other.

I make just two points. A longstanding Standing Order states that when two members rise in the House, the senior one will be taken first. Now, I am not disputing that beyond my saying it, but when I said that, the member had not started his point of order. Therefore, Mr Brownlee’s complaint is without any validity, whatsoever. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I will just rule on this point of order. [Interruption] Please be seated. I just remind Mr Brownlee that we do not go over what happened yesterday when we are talking about the context of what is happening now. When that point of order started, there was a banter from about three people, and Mr Henare entered into it, too. That was not his point of order. I let that go on both sides. We will now continue with the debate.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on the point of order. I presume this is a new point of order.

It is a new point of order. You took exception to a statement that was made by my colleague Mr Henare and asked him to leave the Chamber, but prior to making the statement you took exception to, he raised some concerns about the behaviour of members opposite that, as a result of asking him to leave, you did not address. In the context of the general caution you gave earlier, which some members may doubt that you meant given the standard of enforcement that followed, I want you to lay down to the House now very clearly the rules that will apply. Otherwise, we will have this confusion whereby members like Mr Henare will be the unwitting victims, due to intervening in good faith because they have become so frustrated with the state the House has come into, despite the warnings that have been given by the presiding officer. So I want you to be quite clear about the expectations, then I want you to follow through with those expectations after you have created them.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I thank the member. Firstly, I have made the expectations very clear, and, secondly, when Mr Henare made his point others were making points on both sides. I let him continue with his point of order, and he added other things to his point of order that were not part of the point of order. That is why I ruled the way I did. I have clarified the matter. We will continue with the general debate.

We have just heard a very self-righteous speech from Dr Don Brash, impugning the integrity of others. I want to ask him something about his own integrity. I want to ask him why, on 5 and 6 September, he twice denied any knowledge of the Exclusive Brethren and their distribution of pamphlets, yet on 8 September he said: “I knew they were going to issue some pamphlets attacking the government and I said ‘that’s tremendous.’ ” I want to know why that man deceived the public of New Zealand for 2 days by denying that he knew anything about the Exclusive Brethren pamphlets. He had meetings with the Exclusive Brethren. So keen was he to keep that a secret, that he asked his office to take those appointments out of his diary. He was ashamed of the fact that he would be supported by an extreme religious sect to the tune of $1 million.

I want to know, Dr Brash, why you have not included that $1 million in your election return, because very clearly those pamphlets were about getting you re-elected.

💬 Dr Don Brash: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would have thought that the Standing Orders do not allow members to make assertions that are absolutely and totally without foundation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No. That was part of the general debate. This is a robust debate, and certainly, those points have been raised from all sides of the House.

Dr Brash can run but he cannot hide. He cannot hide from the facts. At his invitation I will table his denial twice that he knew anything about the Exclusive Brethren pamphlets. He denied it twice. Some people outside this House would suggest that when one denies something that one knows about, that is a lie.

Dr Brash also comes into this House—[Interruption] Oh, he does not like it. He should stick to the truth.

💬 Dr Don Brash: He should withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I think that does come under a personal reflection. I would ask the member to withdraw that comment.

I withdraw, Madam Speaker. Then Dr Brash comes in and talks about integrity and “pledge-gate”. Dr Brash, this pamphlet shows your face. On the front of it, it asks: “What does National stand for?”. This is a piece of party political propaganda. This went out across the electorates before and during the election campaign. Dr Brash, if you come in here and say that the Prime Minister should pay for her pamphlet, why can you not undertake to pay for this pamphlet, which you put out under your name during the campaign, when it is about the National Party and, obviously, designed to win support at the election?

But it was not only Dr Brash who did that; it was a number of National’s members. Mr English had hoardings put out right across this country, with statements that were designed to help his re-election. The National Party for years has been spending public money on promoting its pamphlets, but National members have the nerve to hold a double standard and say that when somebody else does that it is wrong, but that when they do it it is OK. I say to Dr Brash that that situation is exactly the same as the New Zealand pledge card, and he knows it.

I want you, Dr Brash, to sometime be accountable to this House and say why you deceived the public of New Zealand by denying what actually happened. You said you did not know about the pamphlets; 2 days later you admitted you did know.

💬 Simon Power: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I will deal with the point of order. The last two speakers have been using the word “you” and bringing the Speaker into the debate. I was going to make that point after this speech. I did not want to interrupt either member, but I probably should have made the point after the first speech. It also happened quite a lot the other day. I ask members not to bring the Speaker into the debate.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is also an added dimension to that ruling, which is that in bringing you into the debate Mr Goff has also accused you of deceiving the public.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I have made the point. The member can withdraw his remarks.

Madam Assistant Speaker, I would certainly withdraw any remark that was felt to be directed against you. I have said that Dr Brash deceived the public by denying his knowledge of a pamphlet that he admitted 2 days later he knew all about.

A million dollars was spent by a small religious sect, to try to get the National Party re-elected. It has even got the tick: “Use your party vote to change the Government.” That pamphlet, put out by the Exclusive Brethren in my electorate and designed to support the National Party, was not put on the National Party’s electoral return. That is quite wrong. Dr Brash knew that a million dollars was being deceitfully spent in order to get him re-elected.

There is another question I should ask Dr Brash, and it relates to what Mr Hide has said about there being three or four National Party traitors who are fuelling speculation in the media about a leadership coup, and asking Dr Brash why he does not take the vote to the caucus and demonstrate his authority within the caucus. I want Dr Brash to tell the House who the three or four traitors in the National Party were. Let us have a think about it. John Key is there. He, of course, has said he will not stab Don Brash in the back—but Don Brash said that about Bill English, and 6 months later stabbed him in the back. I say to Dr Brash that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword. Or is it Gerry Brownlee? I understand it was Gerry Brownlee who was fuelling that speculation, because he sees a leadership vacuum and he wants to hold that position. But then there is Bill English. Bill English wants utu. He wants to pay back Dr Brash with the same loyalty that Dr Brash showed him. That member is a lame-duck leader who will not survive long in this House.

I remind members of the public that that was “Barbeque Phil Goff” speaking just then—the man who should really not talk about trying to stab leaders in the back.

Can I just say to this House that I have never known the portfolio of transport or roading to be in such a shambolic state. I say that because of the level of press releases that have come out today; not from the National Party, although we have done our bit, but from just any other organisation one might wish to name: Federated Farmers, the Automobile Association, the regional councils, and a number of other organisations that are absolutely in a state of crisis—and the Contractors Federation can be added to that list, as well. They are in a state of crisis because they simply have no idea what the roading programme for the next few years is.

One might say that that is not really fair comment because the Government has put out a reasonably good document. Well, actually, the Government has put out lots and lots of documents, and every one it has put out contradicts the previous one. I have to say that the Minister of Transport, David Parker, should either tender his resignation because of the shambles or, more important, go after the members of the board of Transit seeking their resignations.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who’s on that board?

Actually, the member asks a good question. Who is on the board of Transit? A common factor with Labour Party overspending comes to mind. His name is Mike Williams, the Labour Party president. When we hear the cry in the House all the time: “Pay it back, pay it back!”, maybe Mr Williams should get some of that money back so he can pay for all the printing that goes on at Government Print, or whoever does it.

I want to tell the House this. Transit put this document out in the last week of June last year. Now, that is proper. That is what should happen. It is a 10-year plan that is released once every year, saying what the next 10 years should look like. That is absolutely proper. But what happened was the first codicil that was added to the document came out on the day the document came out. There is a little orange sticker at the very bottom that says we cannot take any notice of this document because the Government announced something just that week that Transit did not know about and, therefore, this document is not worth the glossy paper it is printed on. It is full of maps, graphs, and tables—but we can forget it; it is not worth it. That is the first point.

So everybody sat in limbo for some time. Then, 2 months later, there was another document. Members will spot how much the covers are alike, but the new one has the words “Update August 2005”. I do not know why they did not put the day and the week, as well, because that is what we will have to go to. Now yet another update has come out with it all changed. Everybody out of the pool—it has all changed. The construction industry people said: “Oh, my God! Now we have to go back to the drawing board and decide how many new bulldozers and how many new personnel we will need.”

Then the rumours started leaking out, driven by the Prime Minister’s speech last week, that there was a problem with roading. She made one of the worst mistakes she has ever made. Again, she was badly briefed by her transport Minister that roading costs were blowing out because of contractors and their pricing. Well, the Contractors Federation was out of the blocks straight away, pointing out that the key drivers of roading costs are cement prices, steel prices, and fuel prices—not one of which the federation has any control over. They are international commodities and that is what is driving it. Even when we add all those increases together, the contractors’ margins have been squeezed back a bit. So I tell the Prime Minister that she should not start blaming the contractors. She should blame her Government for driving some of the inflationary spiral.

But now I come to the doozy. We have all been waiting for this. We heard about it last night around the corridors. There is a new document out. I thought: “Right! I better be ready.”, so I got my team ready with the spreadsheets. We got all the old data and we said that we had better look to see how different it is. All morning I have sat at my PC inputting this data. Here it is—a beautiful coloured glossy about the State highway programme. I thought it was really worth doing so that we would be really ready to respond.

An hour after the document was formally released at midday, the Associate Minister of Finance Trevor Mallard said: “See all these? Forget them. They don’t mean anything. They are of no value. We are not going to do it. They are of no value—they’re gone.” That is what Mallard said. I say to this Government: how on earth can the roading industry plan where, with this Minister and this board of Transit, the plan changes daily?

We saw an extraordinary spectacle in question time today. A member who has been in this House just over 3 years as a new Minister creamed a former Minister who has had 20 years of experience. He had better jokes, better lines, and better everything. But the real point of my contribution today is to go back to Don Brash and his argument about credibility, responsibility, and integrity. I want to pick up on the theme outlined by Phil Goff. I refer to the relationship between the National Party and the Exclusive Brethren. It is absolutely true that Don Brash, who is supposed to be a smart person—he has run the Reserve Bank and he has an IQ of 100-plus—could not remember for 2 days whether he had a meeting with the Exclusive Brethren. Then, suddenly, incontrovertible proof was put in front of him that he had.

What the public fail to understand or cannot get the hang of is why the Exclusive Brethren would suddenly become politically active. Well, I have to say that in actual fact it is very clear. The public, and people generally, do not know that the Exclusive Brethren have a school, Westmount, on 12 sites. They have 12 schools and approximately 1,000 pupils for which they run those private schools. They have complained consistently to the National Party about the level of the State’s contribution to private education. The National Party promised the Exclusive Brethren that it would double the State’s contribution. Let us work this out. There is $40 million going into this area of activity and the Exclusive Brethren schools, with approximately 1,000 pupils, would receive $1.5 million in income each year from the Government. So if, in fact, the Government doubles its money, the Government’s contribution will rise from $1.5 million to $3 million a year.

On television we had the spectacle of the Exclusive Brethren meeting with John Key. He would have said to them: “The finance stacks up like this, boys. You put $1 million into the National Party campaign. We will make sure that you double your money and you will get a $4.5 million return over 3 years.” That is a 450 percent return on investment, over 3 years. It is quite clear and it is very simple. It is all public. We all know how much the Exclusive Brethren get. They get $1.5 million; the National Party promised to double it and give them $3 million a year. Now the Exclusive Brethren say that they spent only half a million dollars. Like Don Brash, they have no credibility because they denied that they were putting out these pamphlets. They denied it and denied it until there was incontrovertible proof, and then they fronted up and said that they had spent half a million dollars. Well, if they lied before, why would members believe them now? There is no reason to believe them.

The second element of this is that of the $1 million the Exclusive Brethren paid for a National Party campaign to write and deliver their pamphlets—there is no question about it—not one cent is on the National Party’s returns for electoral expenses. The only thing that the National Party’s return for expenses can be described as is a cheat sheet, because that is what it is. There is over $1 million worth of expenditure. This smells of corruption in my view because, unlike other political contributions, there is a direct and pecuniary interest to a group. The Exclusive Brethren have an exclusive school. No one who is outside of the Exclusive Brethren can sign up for it, and it is subsidised by the State. If the State is going to double the subsidy to that school, then the money will be doubled. So the Exclusive Brethren, by spending $1 million to get the National Party elected, had the prospect of getting a $4.5 million return. That is a 450 percent return.

The tragedy for the Exclusive Brethren is that, having taken the advice of the likes of Don Brash and John Key and made that investment, they have failed. The National Party now has turned up in this House with the largest caucus it has ever had, and it is still in Opposition. I say to the public and to the National Party that National will remain in Opposition as long as it continues to try to cheat its way to victory. The public turned off the National Party dramatically when they saw Don Brash say on TV that he did not have a meeting with the Exclusive Brethren. A day later he said that he did not have a meeting with the Exclusive Brethren, and only on the third day—he did not have the third crow of the cock, by the way—he said that he did. This is a man who tries to say that he is smart. Well, he ain’t that dumb.

Civil rights leader and orator Dr Martin Luther King Jnr once said that life’s most urgent question is: “What are you doing for others?”. The answer to that question in the prisons of this country is depressing. The report of the Ombudsmen released last Christmas described the shameful shadow of neglect that hangs over our penal walls. The report described inefficiencies in the basics, such as access to clothing, dentists, and books. It outlined a lack of employment and vocational programmes, despite the fact that access to meaningful work or training is a key departmental goal to reducing reoffending.

The report went further. It described substandard recreational facilities, sloppy sentence-management plans, inadequate procedures to record information, and an overall inconsistency in terms of inmate management and policy. Perhaps the most damning find was the revelation that the Department of Corrections was painting a picture that differed greatly from reality. The report of the Ombudsmen stated that “while a casual reading of the Department’s published documents might suggest it is substantially meeting those ideals and intents for prisoners, our conclusion is that this is not the case.” It is hardly a good news story, unless, of course, members like the story of the emperor’s new clothes.

Yesterday, when I asked the Minister of Corrections when the report into the detention and treatment of prisoners would be taken seriously—particularly its urgent recommendations relating to conditions that breach international human rights standards—his response was that he had every confidence that we are meeting those standards right now. This is not a fairy tale. Bad Girls is a TV programme, not the curriculum for New Zealand jails. Budget blowouts, poor accountancy practices, prison break-outs, emergency measures to accommodate extra inmates such as double-bunking, and industrial disputes over safety all sound like a failed system to me, and our jails are still bulging at the seams.

In a report on prison and reoffending released today, the Salvation Army has recommended a multiparty agreement to deal with the issues of crime and punishment in a non-partisan way. The report calls for some principled, courageous leadership to turn prisons round. The Māori Party has heard this call and supports it with all its will. We must turn round this crisis before it is too late.

The biggest flaw in the prison mentality is the proliferation of psychologists who would, if we allowed, diagnose children in utero as potential crims, identify their criminogenic needs, assess people for Māori culturally-related needs if they happen to be a Māori, apply a dosage of bicultural therapy, and finish off by applying the risk of reconviction, “ROC”, and the risk of imprisonment, “ROI”, tools, which together form the ROC٭ROI measure—kind of like the “jailhouse ROC ‘n’ ROI tools”.

We will not tolerate any more tinkering with a system that is clearly falling apart. We suggest three solutions. The first is to look elsewhere, and we hope that on his recent trip to Finland the Minister picked up on some key strategies for success. The second is to look here at some of the excellent ideas just waiting to be read. The ombudsman’s Christmas reading, the Roper report, and Moana Jackson’s He Whaipainga Hou: A New Perspective, the Salvation Army’s report would be a pretty good start. Finally, the best source of investment for sustainable solutions is to look to our whānau, to stop the politicking, and to ask our families for help—and that includes discussions with the families of the victims and the families of the offenders.

Five months ago the Waitangi Tribunal said that Māori communities have significant interests in the goal of reducing Māori offending and the use of Māori culture to help achieve that goal. Is the Minister prepared to speak to Māori communities, or does such an approach fall into the “ethnic targeting no-go zone” promoted by this Government? How about investing in them—not with bricks and mortar, not with diagnostic codes and treatment plans, but with real tangible resources—to help families to help themselves? All it takes is the political world to make the change.

I feel duty-bound and obliged to keep the public informed of the latest National Party leadership race, which has moved on again since last week. I think that the public needs to know about where the TAB odds are, who is running, who is fading, and who is looking like he or she will not even make it. Let us just recap who the horses are. We have Don Brash, the current leader who is not really the leader, Gerry Brownlee, who wants to be the leader but not likely to be, John Key, who will probably be the leader at some stage but it is not certain when that will be, Bill English, who was the leader and now wants to be the leader again, Simon Power, who was predicted to be the leader but is not likely to be, and a bit of a roughie. If I had money and I wanted to put it on a roughie, I would take Tim Groser, because I think he is paying very, very good odds.

Let us look at what has happened in the last week To be fair to Don Brash, I think he has moved slightly ahead. He was in the pack, but then he was moving just slightly ahead, because he laid down the law and told his caucus not to be disloyal. Therefore, he had probably moved a little ahead of the pack. But today Don Brash has gone backwards, by throwing Transit documents around Parliament. The important thing about that is that he was trying to do angry. I tell him not to do angry, because he just does not do it well. I think the pressure is getting to him—moving forward a bit, dropping back a bit. Overall, Don Brash has probably not really improved his position in the last little while.

Then there is Gerry Brownlee. Gerry Brownlee, one would have to say, has gone backwards. He has gone backwards because he was outed as the person who was undermining John Key. That was a really, really bad piece of information the public had. As a result, I would say that Gerry Brownlee is fading. He is running out of puff, fading, and not likely to make the cut at the end of the day. I think that whatever happens at the end, he will not even be the deputy leader. I think that is the point. Gerry Brownlee will go to the back benches and, with restructuring, he will slowly disappear out into the lobby.

Then there is John Key. It is fair to say that he was looking strong in that pack. He was coming forward, and then went backwards after announcing at the 2-day National caucus meeting that someone was deliberately undermining him. He said he knew who it was, but he would not say. That outraged and incensed the National Party caucus. How do we know that? Well, we know that it incenses us when those sorts of things happen. As a result, John Key himself has been dropping back. He has gone quiet. He is quite happy just to gallop there in the middle of the field, just going along quietly and waiting for the break—waiting for the gap. He knows he will have to get some assistance from other jockeys who are sitting on the horses around him. He is just waiting, and, of course, his time will come.

Then there is Bill English. What do we know about Bill English? He has gone completely quiet.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: He’s very bitter.

He is bitter, of course, about what happened, because he was rolled. Do members remember that—that he was rolled by Don Brash? Is it not funny that Don Brash is now concerned about being rolled? An old saying is that he who lives by the jockey’s whip dies by the jockey’s whip. Bill English is galloping in the middle of the field, and he may finish strongly.

💬 Sue Moroney: He’s a stayer.

Yes, he is a bit of a stayer. He has come back a bit, but he has not faded. He is also just waiting now. Just like John Key, Bill English is sitting in the middle of the field, waiting for the break but needing the assistance of others.

I come now to Simon Power. It was predicted at the start of the race that potentially he was a winner, but it is fair to say that he has faded and that he will pull up lame. That is a shame, because he is a thoroughbred—he has good breeding. The problem is that although he probably would have made a good leader, I think he will fall out.

Of course, Tim Groser is paying exceptional odds. He is the real roughie in the pack. If I had 20 bucks, I would probably put it on him. I would probably become a millionaire if he ever came in. He is still in the race, but at the same time he is likely to drop out.

So here we have the pack moving forward, and I think we are duty-bound every Wednesday to try to pick where the race is at that particular time, to make sure that people know the odds. Everyone will be interested. We, like the TAB, have a duty to keep people informed of the chances.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: It’s the only interesting thing they do.

Yes, it is the only interesting thing. Not one policy comes out of the National Party; the issue is all about the leadership. Of course, that is the most important thing that the public is looking at as far as the National Party is concerned.

We know how much trouble the credibility of the Government is in when we hear one of its members speak for 5 minutes without mentioning a single issue of any importance to the people of New Zealand. That is how rotten to the core this Labour Government is and why it is on death row. Don Brash put the issue of the Government’s credibility on the agenda this afternoon. Today, at midday, the Government put out an expensive document on an issue that matters—an important issue to do with billions of dollars of roading—and, within an hour, the Government said: “You don’t believe it. Nothing to be believed.” The Government put out a pledge card with the Prime Minister’s own photo and signature on it, in breach of the law. The matter is now before the police.

I want to bring a further issue into the arena—the issues around Kyoto, where again this Government does not have any credibility. You see, 4 years ago the Government ratified the Kyoto Protocol and said that New Zealanders would make hundreds of millions of dollars from it. That has all turned out to be false. Further, we found out that the Government broke the law. The Auditor-General said that Labour broke the law in not disclosing a liability before the election. What is rotten about this Government is that when it gets it wrong, it hides it, it cheats, and it breaks the law.

Then there are the issues of the last 24 hours. Our fourth-biggest export industry, forestry, is in crisis. A huge company, Weyerhaeuser, is pulling all of its investments out of New Zealand because it has completely lost confidence in our forestry industry and in our Government. Yesterday Jim Anderton put out a press release, in which he stated that they had had a very positive meeting with the forestry sector. He went on to state that they would be engaging again with officials. But what did the forestry industry say of the same meeting? It said that it was surprised and disappointed with the comments made by Jim Anderton, the Minister of Forestry. It said that they did not reflect what had occurred at the meeting.

What does that mean? It means that one cannot trust the Government. It means that it did not tell the truth. It means that what it said was untrue. We know that further, because Jim Anderton said that officials would be back talking with the forestry industry, which was what the industry wanted, but the industry said exactly the opposite. Your see, time and time again on issues that matter, you cannot trust any more what Labour Government Ministers say.

Then we had David Parker, the Minister of Transport and also the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues, who has been in the job for only a few months, telling the House that we could not rely on the climate change policy, because it is in flux. I looked up the meaning of flux in the dictionary. It said that it meant something that is in continuous change. Is that not helpful? We have a Kyoto policy that is in continuous change. We were to have a “fart tax”. We have not had a “fart tax”. The Government had to abandon that. Then we were going to have a carbon tax. Only 8 months ago the Government said that the carbon tax was a critical part of the Government’s Kyoto policies. But that has gone. Now we have the awful Kyoto figures and the fiasco with the forestry industry.

The reason this Government is stuffed is that we cannot believe anything it says. Whether it is Transit putting out a huge report on its roading projects, whether it is the Prime Minister’s photo and signature on the pledge card, whether it is David Parker and his fluxing policies on climate change, or whether it is what Jim Anderton said in his press release yesterday, you simply cannot believe anything that Ministers of this Government say. That matters, and that is sad for New Zealand. What sort of Government do we have when New Zealanders can no longer put any credibility on what it says. It has been caught out telling porkies. It has been caught getting it wrong. It has been caught breaking the law so many times that its reputation is in tatters. This is a Government on death row. Its days are numbered. I call on the next speaker to resign and do New Zealand a favour.

Just before I call the next member, I make the point again that the previous speaker brought the Speaker into the debate several times. I remind all members to be aware of that issue.

What a disgraceful display we have seen from the Opposition in this House this afternoon. I believe that this House should take out an ad in the “Situations Vacant” columns, because we actually have a vacant position for an Opposition in the House today. However, we do have to have some consideration, because National does have a leadership problem. Not only does the leader have to contend with a tired, boring, old front bench, but not at one point this afternoon have we heard any policy. All that the Opposition members can do is to chip away at the very decent work that we have been able to achieve under this Labour Government in the last 6 years.

I heard Mr Williamson go on about what he terms a transport debacle. We do not expect behaviour in this House whereby members throw papers around the Chamber. If the fans in this place had been turned on we would have been sprayed with confetti, given the way that member went on. [Interruption] Well, it would have been confetti of a sort, because that is what seems to exist within the minds and to occupy the time of the people who call themselves the loyal Opposition. If there was one, we would be pleased. This Government is sick and tired of having to remind New Zealanders why they put us back in Government: because the policies that have been delivered under a Labour-led Government for 6 years have indeed delivered.

With regard to transport—good heavens! Mr Williamson was the Minister of Transport under the leadership of a National Government, and Better Transport, Better Roads rings with infamy as far as transport at that time is concerned. We have increased significantly, many times over, the funding provided for roading. On that matter, given our ability to be flexible and given the current global economic position to do with petrol and other fuels and things like that, we have taken a prudent stance. We may have to wait a little, but the projects are still on the road. Let us not forget that the report that members on the Opposition side of the House think they will make such capital out of is a draft report. They will not make capital out of it.

Let us get back to the Opposition’s leadership issue, because that is the real problem members opposite have.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: What leadership?

Precisely! As my eminent colleague asks, “What leadership?”. There is no leadership. The display by the Leader of the Opposition in the general debate today was nothing short of pitiful. It was pathetic. I could not even hear the member. He could not even raise his voice enough to be heard. In fact, I wonder whether this is not the first time he has taken part in a general debate in this House. That was disgraceful, coming from the leader of a major party. I would single out every other party leader in this House as being able to deliver something very credible and very reasonable most of the time—but not that leader.

I watched the faces of Don Brash’s caucus members. They looked horrified. They smiled most determinedly through his speech, but I have to inform the listening public that their consternation was palpable. Why? Because they have a flip-flop leader. They have a leader who wants to turn up to events and take to the stage, but who scuttles away as soon as he feels that the climate is not quite warm enough for him. He runs away from facing the people. I had such an experience recently. I will not reiterate it, because I mentioned it last week—if anyone cares to read my speech in Hansard.

I urge this House to give serious consideration to placing an ad in “Situations Vacant” listings across the country for a loyal Opposition. We simply do not have one. That is disgraceful in the forward-thinking democracy that this Labour-led Government embraces. We want to transform our economy, and members on the Opposition side of the House continually talk the country down. They do not want to give New Zealanders opportunities, as we do. We in the Government are inclusive in our responses to the community, and we listen. I have to inform the listening public that Opposition members do not do that very well, at all. I have brought them to silence now, I must admit, so I will concede that they like listening to me. That is most entertaining, I know, from time to time.

I have managed to be as kind as I possibly can be. I offer the hand of help to the Opposition and say that if it needs a few tips, it should come and talk to those of us who experienced being in Opposition long ago. In fact, it is so far in the past now since National was in Government that we have almost lost that institutional knowledge. We intend to keep it that way—to remain on the Government side of the House, leading this country towards a transformed economy that is inclusive of young and old and of families, and that offers all the opportunity anyone could ever want.

It gives me great pleasure to speak in this general debate. I am a troubled newbie politician—troubled by the lack of integrity and the dishonesty I see on the benches opposite me among the members of the Clark-Peters Government. Examples abound. Firstly, the pièce de résistance—the assertion that the pledge card was a legitimate use of taxpayer funding through the Prime Minister’s leader’s fund. I do not think so! The timing was just too cute by far—arriving in my mailbox smack in the middle of the election campaign, with no pretence at all, a glossy brochure and a pledge card with a stunning babe photograph on it. How could that not win votes? The rules on taxpayer-funded advertising can be summarised very succinctly: publicising policies is okay; soliciting votes or—

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise to my colleague, but the previous senior Government whip will know that it is contrary to the Standing Orders to move to another seat in order to gain a better advantage for interjections. I suggest that if she wishes to interject she return to her seat at the back of the Chamber. Alternatively, she could stay in her seat and keep quiet.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): That is exactly what the Speaker’s ruling says, but I think most people are out of their own seats in the general debate today and have been interjecting from where they are sitting at present, because most people like to come forward. We seem to let it go, but we will certainly send people to their proper seats if that is what the member wants.

The pledge card is all about soliciting votes. If it were not, Labour would not keep rolling it out, election after election. Labour made a calculated decision to campaign on the public purse. There is no confusion. There was no mistake. It was a deliberate and conscious decision—dishonesty and lack of integrity. Labour members thought they had got away with it—but no! The matter has been referred to the police, just like the Prime Minister’s many other excursions that are very close to being unacceptable. National has led the charge in calling for an overhaul of taxpayer-funded advertising rules. Only now that Labour has been caught red-handed is the Prime Minister shuffling her feet. It is simply not good enough. Taxpayers deserve far better, and they will get it from National. But wait—there is more lack of integrity! Members may call it duck-shoving, if they like. The previous Aoraki MP and the Prime Minister sped through South Canterbury, then hung the police and civilian drivers out to dry. My constituents sent a clear message to the Hon. Jim Sutton and Labour over their thoughts on that one.

It is very appropriate that I am talking here today about duplicitous behaviour. On 29 August 2005 the Timaru Herald carried a story of a miraculous change in the priority of local Transit State Highway 1 and State Highway 8 project funding. The previous Minister of Transport, Pete Hodgson, was quoted as saying: “I would hope that the money for the full feasibility plan for the roundabout can be made available in this financial year and funding for its construction in the next financial year. Construction of the roundabout would be planned for the winter of 2007 …”. The headline was “Green light for roundabout: SH1 trouble spot gets top priority”. But wait—what do we see in the report today? That project is so far away that it does not even warrant a date. There is no chance whatsoever that Trevor Mallard will be able to talk the department into putting it in the next draft of this document. The earlier comment was duplicitous. Labour thought that it might win Labour the election, but it did not work in my electorate. Pete Hodgson and Jim Sutton can now be seen for what they are. They attempted to bribe the people of Aoraki and they failed but miserably.

The other project that got quite a bit of newspaper coverage during the election was another attempted bribe—Timaru’s courthouse. Again, we find that that is on the backburner now that the election is past. I implore the Government not to punish the people of Aoraki for their distrust of the Prime Minister and Jim Sutton. I implore the Government not to treat the people of Aoraki badly just because of the election result, because that distrust was bred of “paintergate”, “Doone-gate”, “corngate”, “motorcade-gate”, and “pledge card - gate”. I fear that their trust will now take a further battering when they find out about Labour’s duplicity in relation to the election pledge card.

I represent rural provincial New Zealand and the people of Aoraki. I strive also to represent being trustworthy. That seems to me to be something that all of those examples are not. Again, I remind members that we have had “paintergate”, “Doone-gate”, “corngate”, and “motorcade-gate”—all examples of Government members not being trustworthy. So I invite them to try to mend bridges, to try to apologise. For a start, they should pay the money back. They should say to the people of New Zealand: “OK, it was not OK to ask you to pay for a bribe for your votes.” That is a very simple exercise. So they should start by paying the money back. We did find that Ministers put their hands in their pockets to pay the fines for the motorcade’s police officers. What was that if not an about-face and a “We’re feeling guilty; how can we mend this bridge?” But the people of Aoraki saw through it, and they did not feel that that made those people trustworthy in their eyes.

I am familiar with what it takes to have a hard-working, successful, and competent Government, because I am a Labour member of Parliament. I am familiar with what that all takes, because we have had a Labour Government for the last 6 years. However, as a new member of Parliament, I have been very interested to see how an Opposition behaves—and it has been quite an eye-opener.

For that reason I was really interested to see what happened during National’s 3-day caucus retreat. I thought: “Here comes the challenge.”, because is it not the job of the Opposition to challenge the Government? What challenges would Opposition members put before the Government? What in-depth proposals would they have for the future of New Zealand? Clearly, Dr Smith does not understand the concept of continuous improvement, because when he spoke previously to this House he was concerned about changes—that changes might happen in New Zealand. Well, let me tell members opposite that continuous improvement is exactly what this Government strives for. That is why we are continuously looking to see what we can do better for New Zealand.

But what was National doing at its caucus retreat? I had hoped its members might get a whiteboard out and start doing some calculations on the tax cuts they had promised throughout the election campaign. Then they might have worked out that those promises did not add up. They would have worked out that what they had promised would amount to having deficits in this country. They would have worked out that we would end up having cuts, subsequently, to health and education in order to give those tax cuts they had promised and, yes, that spending on roading could not go ahead with the tax cuts promised. Perhaps they were going to spend 3 days working out, and finally coming to a conclusion about, what it means to be “mainstream”. What is the definition of mainstream? Perhaps they were going to spend their 3 days working that out amongst themselves and getting agreement on who is and who is not mainstream, and which members of the National Party caucus fitted that criterion and which did not. But, no, they did not come to any conclusions even on those issues. In that 3-day retreat, what ended up happening was an endless number of leadership squabbles and leaks to the media. A few witch-hunts were going on about who leaked what to whom. Then, just adding to that, there were a few flip-flops—now characteristic of the National Party—on policy, for good measure. That is what happened during the 3-day National Party caucus retreat.

I want to thank the Hon Paul Swain for giving a wonderful racing analogy before of what is going on with the leadership squabbles within National, because I can finally understand who is in the field and who the players are. So I thank Mr Swain for that. But the cloak-and-dagger approach was not left behind after the 3-day retreat. I have been observing the strange movements of the National Party caucus over the last 24 hours and, in particular, the strange movements of its leader, Dr Brash. While Prime Minister Helen Clark was dealing with issues affecting the nation, at about a quarter to 10 last night Dr Brash was spending his time here in this House. I thought he had come to make a speech but, no, he spent his time sidling up to back-bench members to shore up his own position in the leadership squabbles. That is what he was doing, while the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, was dealing with issues that affect this nation.

I am reliably informed, even though I was not in the House at the time, that that is exactly the same sort of thing Jenny Shipley was doing just before her demise as leader of National—coming into the debating chamber late at night to get alongside back-benchers. The other contenders, I am sure, know of that approach, and they will be using it as well. Simon Power knows it, so do Bill English and John Key. How many approaches have they been making? How have they been sidling up to back-benchers to shore up their positions in the leadership squabble? And what will the role be for Tau Henare? It is sad to see that he has been ejected from the House for this sitting because of his lack of respect for the role of the Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member must not refer to the absence of members from the Chamber. That is a longstanding convention. All of us at some stage have to leave the Chamber.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. But what role will Tau Henare play in the current squabbles going on about the leadership? I was not in the House when the waka-jumping legislation was debated and went through, but I believe that the waka in question was known as “Tau Henare”, so he must be looking forward to what will be happening in the aftermath of the leadership coup that will inevitably happen within the National Party. That is fertile ground for Tau. The disaffected will be thinking—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member. I know she is new, but she must use the member’s full name, please.

So that is fertile ground for Tau Henare in his new-found home in the National Party, because after the leadership coup has happened what will the disaffected—those people who supported a member who did not win in that leadership coup—be looking to do? Will they be looking to form yet another new party? That is the sort of thing that Tau Henare specialises in, and I think he would be looking forward to that. All of those things are going on across the way there; meanwhile, what is happening on this side?

We have been back here for not quite 2 weeks into the 2006 year, and what have we heard? We have heard Labour and National ripping into each other, almost exclusively about campaign spending. That is campaign spending that the smaller parties hardly registered in, I have to say. Labour spent $400,000 out of the leader’s fund on a pledge card, so we are told. Will that party pay it back? No—of course it will not. National received huge support from the Exclusive Brethren. Will the Exclusive Brethren let the National Party go? No, they will not. They will keep influencing it, and the Labour Party will keep spending. All the while, members from both sides of the House speak of their honour and credibility, and of the rightness of their cause. We in New Zealand First say that the more they speak of their honour, the more we count our spoons.

The public in this country needs to understand that those two tired, old parties will continue in that manner, and that what is needed is—and the strength of people’s vote needs to be put into—a strong third party. It will not be until we have critical mass in a third party in this country that we will start to get the transparency that MMP promised—and the action that people demand of a Government.

While all of the bickering and carrying-on is going on, New Zealand First is attending to the job. We understand MMP, we understand what is needed, and we understand that somebody has to step up to the plate, whether it be with the Labour Party or with the National Party. Whichever party gets the most votes on the day has to be supported, and we have done that. We have had criticism from left, right, and all over the place for the role of our Minister of Foreign Affairs, but I want to put it on the record that when people pick up today’s paper they can read praise for his stance. They can even read of Murray McCully agreeing with the guy, for heaven’s sake. Yet in this House and all around the land, some will pretend otherwise.

This Government will not fall to pieces; it will continue. This is MMP, and this is the way it will be in the future. While the bickering is going on, New Zealand First will get on with getting the job done, not only for its voters but for the public of New Zealand. We will ensure that there are more police on the beat. We will ensure that there is better aged care, and that there is a credit card so that our aged people know what they are entitled to and can go out and access health. We will make sure that the Kyoto Protocol does not proceed in the way that was espoused at election time by the Labour Party. We will make sure that more trees are planted in our communities, and we will ensure that exporters are encouraged. It is only by those methods that we can get this country out of the doldrums and moving into the position it should be in.

But the point I want to make, and the overriding point that I make, is that it is not by supporting the two tired, old, bickering parties that we will progress this country. Support must be given to third parties, and in particular to New Zealand First.

Every time I speak in this House I usually write a few notes down, to follow through. But every time I listen in this House I have to put some extra notes at the top, because I get quite offended by some of the things that happen here. I would like Labour members and others to open their ears and listen to this statement: I am not going to fight for any particular religion, but I would like to tell this Government it should understand that the Bible says that God’s word will be spread in many ways. That should be taken into consideration when people rubbish the Exclusive Brethren, or I think they will burn in hell.

The second point is that Labour members are very consistent; anything they say is not to be believed, including road reports. During the election I put a bit of pressure on the ex - member for Tauranga—the loser, the Rt Hon Winston Peters—and he responded. The Rt Hon Winston Peters promised the people of Tauranga better roads. The Rt Hon Winston Peters promised a second toll-free harbour bridge. We all got excited. We thought that when the Rt Hon Winston Peters did the deal with the Labour Party and became a half-pie Minister for Foreign Affairs, it was all on.

The truth is now coming out. We have delays in our roads. Construction has been pushed back for years. Some of the people in Tauranga who trusted Winston, and there were a few of them, have found that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has deserted them and moved to Auckland. This promise, by the way, is right there in the agreement between the Government and the New Zealand First Party. The National Party, and Winston—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member must use the full name.

Sorry, I apologise. The National Party and the Rt Hon Winston Peters promised we would begin building roads in Tauranga immediately after the election. If National were the Government, those roads would have been started by now and we would be well on the way.

I am deeply disturbed by this dead-beat Government. The future of the Mayor of Tauranga hangs in the balance because of Winston’s promises—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Sorry, I apologise again—the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I would rather forget his name but, however! Somebody has just yanked the chair away—the mayor is gutted; I have actually talked to him. The mayor’s whole plan was to get another bridge in Tauranga.

It also saddens me that productivity for the whole of New Zealand is out the window. Roads are the key to successful businesses and to improving the economy. New Zealand is in a holding pattern until it can get rid of this do-nothing bunch of wallies in Government. When National becomes the Government we will get roads built and put the wheels back on the bus. I am in deep despair. As a businessman I cannot believe that we are living in a country where only a few weeks ago the roads in Tauranga were blocked up for 2 hours for no good reason. That is beyond belief. It should not be allowed to happen by any sane Government. This Government has been in power for 6 years. All the excuses in the world cannot shift the blame. The failure to build roads is the Government’s responsibility.

New Zealanders have worked hard. We have been through the best period of commodity prices for years. No other Government has had it so good.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: They have squandered it.

It has taken taxpayers’ money and squandered it. In some cases it has stolen that money for its own use.

If voters gave National 6 years, we would have roading in this country up to speed or well on the way. We would have this place humming. Government members will say that we would borrow millions. National would borrow only a small amount of money. Out of the consolidated account we would take the tax that was taken off for road users. Those roads to a certain extent would be self-funding. The accident rates would drop. Productivity would increase and people would be allowed to go about their business in the best possible way.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.